Journal of Technology and Science Education - Journal of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Technology and Science Education
JOTSE, 2021 – 11(2): 486-497 – Online ISSN: 2013-6374 – Print ISSN: 2014-5349
https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
INCORPORATING KAHOOT! IN CORE ENGINEERING COURSES:
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE
Victor Chernov1 , Sivan Klas2 , Yael Furman Shaharabani3
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, ORT Braude College, Karmiel (Israel)
2
Department of Biotechnology Engineering, ORT Braude College, Karmiel (Israel)
3
Department of Teaching and General Studies, ORT Braude College, Karmiel (Israel)
chernov@braude.ac.il, sivanklas@braude.ac.il, yaelfsha@braude.ac.il
Received March 2021
Accepted April 2021
Abstract
Technology-enriched lessons can contribute to improving student engagement and learning in engineering
courses. In this study we systematically incorporated Kahoot!, a game-based response system, in two
mandatory content-intensive undergraduate engineering courses. In both courses, short quizzes were
incorporated regularly at the beginning of the lesson. The questions were mostly about concepts, and
students earned bonus points. At the end of the course, the students filled in an anonymous survey
regarding their perceptions of the Kahoot! part of the lessons. In addition, the students’ grades in the
final test were compared to their gains in the Kahoot! quizzes. We found that student satisfaction with the
systematic incorporation of the Kahoot! quizzes was high in both courses. Most students were motivated
to review the course content before class and about half were motivated to attend class. Most students
perceived Kahoot! quizzes as contributing to their understanding of the course content. We also found a
positive association between student success in the quizzes and their performance in the final exam in
both courses. The frequent Kahoot! quizzes supplied continuous feedback to the students and lecturers,
and the students became more engaged in the course content. Our findings indicate that technology-
enriched strategies, specifically gamification techniques, contribute to increased student engagement,
motivation, and performance in content-intensive engineering courses.
Keywords – Engineering education, game-based learning, student engagement, immediate feedback,
continuous assessment, Kahoot!
To cite this article:
Chernov, V., Klas, S., & Furman Shaharabani, Y. (2021). Incorporating Kahoot! in core engineering
courses: Student engagement and performance. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(2),
486-497. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
----------
1. Introduction
Technology-enriched lessons can contribute to improving students’ engagement and learning in
engineering courses (Plump & LaRosa, 2017; Vial, Nikolic, Ros, Stirling & Doulai, 2015). Recently, a
massive observational study of undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) education found that conventional lectures are prevalent throughout the curriculum (Stains,
-486-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
Harshman, Barker, Chasteen, Cole, DeChenne-Peters et al., 2018). There is evidence of the positive effect
of active learning on student gains in STEM disciplines (Freeman, Eddy, McDonough, Smith, Okoroafor,
Jordt et al., 2014). Yet, most lectures in engineering courses still lack active learning experiences and the
continuous feedback required for enhancing students’ learning and developing professional competencies
needed for their future employment.
Technological tools involving gamification may enrich STEM lessons and enhance students’
engagement and learning. Gamification is “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts”
(Deterding, Dixon, Khaled & Nacke, 2011). Gamification techniques are a means to increase student
engagement and motivation (Goshevski, Veljanoska & Hatziapostolou, 2017; Leaning, 2015) by
integrating game elements in educational activities. For example, students’ perceptions of motivation,
attention, and learning performances were more positive when their lectures included gamified student
response systems activities (Barrio, Muñoz-Organero & Soriano, 2016). Excitement and enjoyment of
game-like activity act as a leverage for student engagement and motivation. A review of gamified
learning in higher education (Subhash & Cudney, 2018) indicated improved student engagement and
performance as the most significant benefits, and revealed the lack of research of gamification in
engineering education.
Kahoot! is a game-based response system that is designed for promoting motivation in the classroom
setting (Wang & Lieberoth, 2016). The students use their mobile devices to answer short quizzes that
incorporate participation-enhancing elements, such as on-screen questions and distribution of answers
and points, limited response time, immediate feedback, and music. Previous studies demonstrate that
Kahoot! quizzes engage students in learning and provide them with immediate feedback, thereby
improving the quality of learning (Barrio et al., 2016; Licorish, Owen, Daniel & George, 2018). The
Kahoot! answers convey the level of students’ knowledge and understanding and immediately draw the
lecturer’s attention to shortcomings. The immediate feedback to the students offers formative ongoing
assessment.
Student engagement is an evolving concept taking many forms (Groccia, 2018; Mandernach, 2015).
Earlier definitions highlighted different aspects of engagement, while recent works composed an
integrated definition of engagement as a multidimensional concept encompassing behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive components (Groccia, 2018; Mandernach, 2015). Specifically, Groccia (2018) described
student engagement as participation, effort and persistence (behavioral), experiencing interest, enjoyment,
and motivation (affective), and processing the experience and linking it to previous experiences
(cognitive). He indicated that it is possible for a student to be positively engaged on one or more levels,
but negatively engaged on other dimensions. Hodges (2020) suggested that behavioral and emotional
engagement promotes motivation, therefore is necessary for cognitive engagement. Kahoot! quizzes may
engage students behaviorally, affectively, and cognitively.
To the best of our knowledge, there is limited research on students’ engagement and learning in
technology-enriched gamification teaching in general and specifically in engineering courses. In this study
we systematically incorporated Kahoot! in two content-intensive engineering courses. Two main research
questions were examined:
A) How do engineering students perceive the influence of the quizzes on their learning experience?
In particular, how do the students view aspects of their motivation, engagement, and
understanding?
B) How do participation and success in the quizzes relate to students’ performance in the final
course tests?
-487-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
2. Methods
2.1. Course Description
Kahoot! quizzes were introduced in two mandatory content-intensive thermodynamics undergraduate
(B.Sc.) courses at ORT Braude College of Engineering. The semester was 14 weeks long, and
attendance was not mandatory for either course. The final grades in both courses were on a 100-point
scale, with 55 being the passing grade. The first course was fourth-semester Thermodynamics at the
Department of Mechanical Engineering (Thermo-M). The course consisted of two weekly sessions: a
lecture of three academic hours (where an academic hour is 50 minutes long) and a tutorial of two
academic hours. Eighty-nine students were enrolled and could choose between two lecture sessions and
three tutorial sessions. The second course was third-semester Thermodynamics and Kinetics at the
Department of Biotechnology Engineering (Thermo-B). The course consisted of two weekly sessions:
a lecture of two academic hours and a tutorial of two academic hours. Twenty-eight students were
enrolled (Table 1).
2.2. Kahoot! Quiz Incorporation
The courses had different lecturers, each of whom incorporated Kahoot! in their own way. In both
courses, the short quizzes were incorporated regularly at the beginning of the lesson. The questions were
mostly about concepts, and students could gain bonus points by answering correctly.
Thermo-M. Kahoot! quizzes consisted of three questions and were incorporated twice a week at the
beginning of each lesson (both lectures and tutorials). Two questions addressed the content of the
previous lesson and one addressed an earlier topic. The questions were mostly about concepts, but
occasionally an easy calculation was required (several examples are provided). A quiz winner was the
student who received the highest score amongst all players, i.e., answered all questions correctly and
quickly. A quiz winner was granted a bonus of one point added to the final grade. Additionally, in order to
reduce student speed as a major success factor, the number of correct answers given by each student was
calculated at the end of the semester, and the top ten students were granted five bonus points to their
final grade. A student was eligible for up to ten bonus points.
Examples of the Kahoot! questions:
• When can the (gravitational) potential energy of a gas be neglected?
1. Never
2. For high temperatures
3. For high pressures
4. Always, except for height differences of at least a kilometer
• For a liquid, what value does k take?
1. k=1
2. k=0
3. Depends on the liquid
4. Does not exist in liquids
• What is the order of operation of a four-stroke engine?
1. Intake -> Ignition -> Compression -> Exhaust
2. Exhaust -> Intake -> Ignition -> Compression
3. Compression -> Ignition -> Intake -> Exhaust
4. Intake -> Compression -> Ignition -> Exhaust
-488-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
Thermo-B. The Kahoot! quizzes consisted of four to six questions and were incorporated typically once
a week at the beginning of the lecture. The questions addressed concepts and definitions discussed in the
previous lesson. All the students who answered all the questions in a quiz correctly were granted one
bonus point for their final grade up to a maximum of five points. Examples of the questions:
• A reversible process is a process
1. In which the system is restored to its initial state
2. In which no changes occur in the surroundings
3. That is carried out under equilibrium conditions
4. That occurs in the lab only under stringent conditions
• All processes in the Carnot cycle are
1. Adiabatic
2. Isothermal
3. Real
4. Reversible
• In a formation reaction
1. The products are carbon dioxide and water
2. There are no products, since it is theoretical
3. There must be two reactants only
4. The reactants can only be elements
Table 1 summarizes the courses’ main characteristics and grading methods.
Thermo-M Thermo-B
(Mechanical Engineering) (Biotechnology Engineering)
Class size
89 28
(no. of students enrolled)
150-minute lecture + 100-minute lecture +
Weekly class hours
100-minute tutorial 100-minute tutorial
Attendance Not mandatory
80% final exam +
100% final exam +
Grade composition 20% midterm +
Kahoot! bonus points
Kahoot! bonus points
1 point per win; 5 points for the 1 point for every perfectly
Kahoot! bonus 10 students with most correct answers answered quiz
Max. bonus: 10 points Max. bonus: 5 points
Table 1. Summary of the courses’ main characteristics and grading
Since success in the Kahoot! quizzes added to the final grade in both courses, the students had to identify
themselves either by their true name or by a consistent nickname. The quizzes usually introduced an
“action” atmosphere to the lesson. The students requested further clarifications in the case of a
distribution of answers to a question, thus provoking discussion in class that clarified difficult topics or
concepts.
-489-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
2.3. Data Sources and Analysis
At the end of the semester the students were asked to answer an anonymous survey regarding the
Kahoot! part of the course. This survey included six questions: five closed-ended and one optional
openended. The survey questions were:
1. On a scale between 1 and 10, how satisfied were you with Kahoot! quizzes, where 1 is extremely
dissatisfied and 10 is extremely satisfied.
2. Did you review the course content before the lesson to increase your chances of success in the
Kahoot! quiz?
Only one answer could be chosen. The possible answers were:
• Yes, before every class, except perhaps once or twice
• I made an effort to review the course content before each class, but didn’t always have time
• Occasionally
• No
3. Was the Kahoot! quiz a consideration in your decision whether to attend the class?
Only one answer could be selected. The answers were:
• Yes, it was the primary consideration
• Yes, it was a secondary consideration
• No
4. Has your participation in the quizzes made you understand the course content better?
Only one answer could be selected. The answers were:
• Yes, and it was the primary factor in understanding
• Yes, and it was a secondary factor in understanding
• No, there was no influence on understanding
• No, and the quizzes only confused me a little
• No, and the quizzes significantly hampered my understanding
5. The option for Kahoot! bonus points led mostly to:
Students could choose as many answers as they saw fit. This question tried to assess the reaction
of the students to the quizzes in a more detailed way.
The options were:
• Motivation to study
• Enjoyment
• Competition between students
• Stress
• I would rather not have bonus points at all
• Other (here the student could fill their own response)
6. Optional: Students were invited to add remarks about the incorporation of Kahoot! in the course.
In addition, the students’ grades in the courses’ final test were compared to their gains in the Kahoot!
quizzes. We performed two ANOVA tests. The first ANOVA test was on the final test grades, taking
-490-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
group variable Kahoot! points (without points vs. with Kahoot! points), as a between-subject variable. A
second ANOVA test was performed on the final test grades, taking the group variable number of Kahoot!
points (under 60% of maximum points vs. 60% of maximum points and above) as a between-subject
variable. Supplementary to the above, the lecturers’ personal insights and notions about students’
participation and cooperation concerning Kahoot! were collected. The students’ voice (survey question
#6) and lecturers’ insights are incorporated in the description of the findings.
3. Findings and Discussion
This section is divided into two subsections, each addressing a research question posed in the
introduction.
3.1. Student Perceptions of the Kahoot! Quizzes’ Influence on their Learning Experience
This section presents findings regarding the first research question: How do engineering students perceive
the influence of the quizzes on their learning experience? In particular, how do the students view aspects
of their motivation, engagement, and understanding?
At the end of the semester students completed a survey of five questions regarding the Kahoot! part of
the course. The survey was voluntary, and the participation rate was 28% (25 students) and 43% (12
students) for Thermo-M and Thermo-B respectively.
3.1.1. Students’ General Satisfaction
Students’ answers to the survey question #1 indicated their general positive view of the Kahoot! quizzes.
The average ranking in both courses was high. For Thermo-M the average ranking was 8.36, with 14
students ranking the quizzes at 10. Two graded this question with 1 and one student with 5. For
Thermo-B, the average ranking was 8.58 with the lowest being 7. The high average rankings in both
courses reflect the positive appreciation of the Kahoot! in the courses. These findings are similar to
findings in a recent study of gamification in a problem-based learning software engineering course, in
which most of the students rated the use of games in the course at the highest possible rank (Ivanova,
Kozov & Zlatarov, 2019).
Students had the option to add remarks about the incorporation of Kahoot! in their course (survey
question #6). Several students who had negative views of the Kahoot! quizzes pointed out two issues.
The first was that they experienced this activity as stressful. They felt there was pressure on them to
perform well in the quizzes and felt uncomfortable about this. The second issue regarded the timing
aspect of the quizzes. The timing aspect was twofold. The first was that the winner in Thermo-M was
determined by giving correct answers faster than other participants. The slower students were the reason
for the five bonus points given to the best 10 students at the end of the course (Thermo-M), regardless of
their speed. We assume that this remark was probably an expression of frustration by students who were
less successful in the Kahoot! quizzes. The second aspect is that every question had a time limit (for most
questions thirty seconds, although some questions were allotted two minutes). Some students regarded
this as stressful and/or unfair. While this frustration is understandable, the time limit was inherent to the
game. A conscious effort was made by the lecturers to allocate sufficient time for everyone to answer. An
example of a positive remark is: “Some of the Kahoot! questions indicated possible mistakes I would have
done in a stressful situation”. This remark demonstrates a positive aspect in giving the students ongoing
feedback during their studies. The repetitious Kahoot! quizzes provided a continuous formative
assessment.
-491-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
3.1.2. Students’ Motivation to Review the Content and Attend Classes
Survey questions #2 and #3 indicated students’ motivation to review the course content prior to the
lesson and to attend the lessons (attendance was optional) in relation to the Kahoot! quizzes.
Figure 1 presents the answers to survey question #2 by Thermo-M and Thermo-B students. As can be
seen, most of the students made at least some effort to review the course content before the class (76%
of the students in Thermo-M, 66% of the students in Thermo-B). The systematic Kahoot! quizzes
motivated the students to devote time to content reviewing, thus they came to class better prepared. One
of the students remarked in answering survey question #6: “It’s a great way to encourage reviewing the
course content before class. Kahoot! at the beginning of every class is a brain warm-up towards the
lesson”.
The students’ answers to survey question #3 showed that in both the Thermo-M and Thermo-B courses
the quizzes were a secondary consideration in the decision to attend class for about half the students
(Thermo-M: 40%, Thermo-B: 50%). For the rest, it was not a consideration at all. No one considered it as
the primary reason to attend the class. Since class attendance in the courses was optional, it was not
recorded or compared with previous years, but the personal impression of the lecturers was that many
students made an effort to attend on time in order to not miss the quiz.
The quizzes seemed to influence the students’ behavior, according to the lecturers’ observations. Some
students declared that they came to class because of the quizzes. In addition, there were very few late
arrivals (the quiz began precisely at the start of class). Furthermore, students would arrive at class with
their phones open and ready to enter the game. Success in answering a quiz question was, in many cases,
celebrated. Occasionally, the winning student took a picture of the winning result to post on social media.
Some students even asked (and received) a selfie with the lecturer and the scores.
Students’ answers to survey question #5 indicated mostly motivation and enjoyment, hence supporting
the data gathered from survey questions #2 and #3. The answer chosen most by Thermo-M students was
“Enjoyment” (chosen by 13 students), followed by “Motivation to study” (11 students) and “Competition
between students” (10 students). Thermo-B students gave similar answers; the leader was “Motivation to
study” (7 students), followed by “Enjoyment” (6 students) and “Competition between students”
(4 students). Hodges (2020) stressed the importance of behavioral and emotional engagement as a
pre-requisite for cognitive engagement. Our findings demonstrate that the consistent use of Kahoot!
makes it a beneficial tool for promoting behavioral and emotional engagement.
Figure 1. Students’ course content review before class
-492-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
It is important to mention that we have not stated whether the competition between students was positive
or negative. It appears that most of the students viewed the competition inherent in Kahoot! as positive,
since the “Stress” and “I would rather not have bonus points at all” options were only chosen by a few
students (6 in Thermo-M and 2 in Thermo-B).
3.1.3. Student Perception of Kahoot! Contribution to Course Content Understanding
Students’ answers to survey question #4 are presented in Figure 2. The findings show that, by and large,
students in both courses felt that Kahoot! quizzes improved their understanding of the course content. In
both courses most students perceived the influence of Kahoot! as a secondary factor. However, in
Thermo-B more positive answers were given (83%), compared to Thermo-M (60%).
Figure 2. Students’ perceptions of the Kahoot! contribution to course
content understanding
This finding differs from previous research that reported findings about Socrative, a similarly designed
GSRS to Kahoot!. They found that students agreed less about whether Socrative enhanced their
understanding, and practice procedures, although they appreciated Socrative as improving classroom
dynamics, involvement and knowledge awareness (Coca-Méndez & Sliško, 2013). The difference in the
findings may be related to several factors, one of which is the type of quiz questions. The Kahoot!
questions in both courses of our study were designed to address the major course concepts and highlight
important emphases. One of the students wrote (survey question #6): “I wish we would have had more
questions, because I understood the principals of all the topics by answering the quizzes”. The frequent
Kahoot! quizzes provided immediate feedback that promoted learning, as well as an opportunity to
develop understanding of important concepts. The lecturers reported that some of the quiz questions
invoked discussion about topics that needed more clarification.
3.2. Kahoot! Quiz Success and Final Test Performance
This section presents findings regarding the second research question: How do participation and success
in the quizzes relate to students’ performance in the final course test?
Thermo-M. Twenty-four Kahoot! quizzes were given during the course at the Department of Mechanical
Engineering. Practically all the enrolled students participated in a quiz at least once. Forty-three percent of
the students (38 of 89) earned at least one bonus point, with one student receiving the full ten maximum
bonus points. Those who received points were granted, on average, a bonus of 2.8 points. Most of the
students who gained points (22 of 38) earned one bonus point.
-493-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269 Several correlations between receiving Kahoot! bonus points and success in the course were found. The overall failure rate in the course (i.e., final grade below 55) was 38%; but among those who received at least one bonus point, the failure rate was lower (27%). Another finding was that the participation rate in the quizzes declined by up to 30% with the progression of the semester. This was in accordance to reduced class attendance, which is typical of this course. Thermodynamics is an intensive class, and some students opt for “marathon” type studying before the exam, while other students prefer watching video lessons in the convenience of their homes. Thermo-B. Ten Kahoot! quizzes were given during the course at the Department of Biotechnology Engineering. Here, too, almost all students participated in a quiz at least once. Seventy-nine percent of the students (22 of 28) earned at least one bonus point, with two students receiving the full five maximum bonus points. In this course, as well, there was an association between success in Kahoot! and success in the course. Five students failed the course, and these are the same five who did not receive even a single bonus point. The courses’ final test grade averages were similar: Thermo-M mean: 63.6 (SD = 21.5), Thermo-B mean: 68.1 (SD=16.2) ( Table 2). Therefore, the ANOVA tests were performed on the combined group of 117 students from both courses. We found a significant effect of Kahoot! points on the final test grade (F(1,115)=13.014), p
Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
The quizzes also allowed the teacher to assess the level of student comprehension, pointing to common
challenges and shared understandings. Sometimes a question about a topic that was expected to be
understood would show less than the satisfactory number of correct answers, indicating a weak point that
required more attention. In parallel, a question that many students answered correctly was usually a good
indication of satisfactory understanding of a specific concept.
4. Concluding Remarks
Technological tools such as Kahoot! provide opportunities for active learning in engineering classes. In
this research student satisfaction with the systematic incorporation of the Kahoot! quizzes during class in
two thermodynamics courses was high. The possibility to obtain bonus points was perceived by many
students as positive and viewed as a motivational and/or an enjoyable part of the course. Only a small
minority viewed this activity as negative. The difference between the courses’ maximum bonus points did
not seem to matter. Both lecturers described a positive influence on students’ behavior and engagement
during classes. The students in both courses became more active learners. Most students were motivated
to review the course content before class and to attend class at least to some degree. These findings are in
accordance with former studies of Kahoot! (Leaning, 2015; Licorish et al., 2018) that noted an extended
student engagement with their peers, the lecturer, and course content.
A substantial number of students earned Kahoot! bonus points in both courses. Most students suggested
that Kahoot! quizzes improved their understanding of the course content, albeit their perception of the
Kahoot! contribution was as a secondary factor. There is a positive association between student success in
the quizzes and performance in the final exam in both courses. This finding is in accordance with former
research that found a match between students’ high final grades and good Kahoot! scores (Aleksic-Maslac,
Sinkovic & Vranesic, 2017). A comparison of students’ final exam grades of these courses with results
from previous years was not possible in this study. Further research is needed to explore the influence of
consistent Kahoot! quizzes on students’ learning process and achievements.
We believe that the systematic incorporation of the gamification platform Kahoot! improved the learning
process in both courses. The frequent Kahoot! quizzes provided formative assessment. The students and
lecturers received continuous and immediate feedback and the students became more engaged with learning
the course content. Previous studies suggested that behavioral and emotional engagement promote
motivation, therefore is necessary for cognitive engagement (Hodges, 2020). Gamification techniques are a
means to increase student enjoyment and motivation to participate and prepare for a game-like activity. Our
findings suggest that Kahoot! quizzes systematically used in mandatory intensive-content undergraduate
engineering courses may engage students behaviorally, affectively, and cognitively.
Our findings support the claim that technology-enriched strategies, specifically gamification techniques,
contribute to increased student engagement, motivation (Goshevski et al., 2017; Leaning, 2015), and
performance (Fabregat-Sanjuan, Pàmies-Vilà, Piera & de la Flor López, 2017; Subhash & Cudney, 2018).
This claim is demonstrated in mandatory content-intensive thermodynamics courses in two different
disciplines of engineering education. Engagement and motivation are inherent to students’ learning and
performance. Therefore, we call for other researchers in STEM courses at large, and engineering courses
specifically, to incorporate Kahoot! or similar technological tools involving gamification to further develop
our knowledge and understanding of these tools’ usage and impact in a specific context.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Dr. Ilana Waisman for assistance with the statistical analysis.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
-495-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Aleksic-Maslac, K., Sinkovic, B., & Vranesic, P. (2017). Influence of gamification on student engagement
in education. International Journal of Education and Learning Systems, 2, 76-82.
Barrio, C.M., Muñoz-Organero, M., & Soriano, J.S. (2016). Can Gamification Improve the Benefits of
Student Response Systems in Learning? An Experimental Study. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in
Computing, 4(3), 429-438. https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2015.2497459
Coca-Méndez, D., & Sliško, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of
basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective
teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17-24.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness:
defining “gamification”. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek
conference: Envisioning future media environments. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Fabregat-Sanjuan, A., Pàmies-Vilà, R., Piera, F.F., & de la Flor López, S. (2017). Laboratory 3.0:
Manufacturing technologies laboratory virtualization with a student-centred methodology. Journal of
Technology and Science Education, 7(2), 184-202. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.249
Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. et al. (2014). Active
learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Goshevski, D., Veljanoska, J., & Hatziapostolou, T. (2017). A review of gamification platforms for higher
education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Balkan Conference in Informatics.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3136273.3136299
Groccia, J.E. (2018). What is student engagement? New directions for teaching and learning, 154, 11-20.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20287
Hodges, L.C. (2020). Student engagement in active learning classes. In Mintzes, J., & Walter, E. (Eds.),
Active Learning in College Science (27-41). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_3
Ivanova, G., Kozov, V., & Zlatarov, P. (2019). Gamification in software engineering education. Paper
presented at the 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and
Microelectronics (MIPRO). https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO.2019.8757200
Leaning, M. (2015). A study of the use of games and gamification to enhance student engagement,
experience and achievement on a theory-based course of an undergraduate media degree. Journal of
Media Practice, 16(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2015.1041807
Licorish, S.A., Owen, H.E., Daniel, B., & George, J.L. (2018). Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence
on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8
Mandernach, B.J. (2015). Assessment of student engagement in higher education: A synthesis of literature
and assessment tools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(2).
Plump, C.M., & LaRosa, J. (2017). Using Kahoot! in the classroom to create engagement and active
learning: A game-based technology solution for eLearning novices. Management Teaching Review, 2(2),
151-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298116689783
-496-Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1269
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M.K., Chasteen, S.V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S.E. et al. (2018).
Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468-1470.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
Subhash, S., & Cudney, E.A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the
literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 192-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028
Vial, P.J., Nikolic, S., Ros, M., Stirling, D., & Doulai, P. (2015). Using online and multimedia resources to
enhance the student learning experience in a telecommunications laboratory within an Australian
university. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1), 71-80.
https://doi.org/10.7158/D13-006.2015.20.1
Wang, A.I., & Lieberoth, A. (2016). The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement,
enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot! Paper presented at the European
Conference on Games Based Learning.
Published by OmniaScience (www.omniascience.com)
Journal of Technology and Science Education, 2021 (www.jotse.org)
Article’s contents are provided on an Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Creative commons International License.
Readers are allowed to copy, distribute and communicate article’s contents, provided the author’s and JOTSE
journal’s names are included. It must not be used for commercial purposes. To see the complete licence contents,
please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
-497-You can also read
